Providing “Fairly Presents” Assurance for
Performance Reports:
A Methodology Discussion Paper Focused on the
Relevance Assertion
November 2005
Michael Macdonell, LastSavedBy: Michael Macdonell 1
M:\Accountability Initiatives\Projects\Performance Information Auditing\2006\Methodology\e438ed5e-0d20-48fe-9285-ea094e5f167f.doc
Created: 06/13/06, LastSaved: 10/05/12 12:47 AM
Introduction....................................................................................................3
The BC Reporting Principles .............................................................................4
The Learning Model .....................................................................................4
Accuracy of Performance Data .........................................................................4
Relevance of Performance Measures ................................................................6
What Does “Relevant” Mean? .......................................................................6
How to Audit Relevance of Performance Measures? .......................................7
Are the reported measures of interest to external stakeholders? .................7
Are the measures consistent with accepted and widely used industry
benchmarks?............................................................................................9
Are the measures reported consistent with a strategic framework used by
the organization to manage performance? ............................................... 11
Other Discussion Issues ................................................................................ 13
Direct Audit vs. Attestation ......................................................................... 13
Evaluation ................................................................................................. 14
Conclusion .................................................................................................... 15
Michael Macdonell, LastSaved: 10/05/12 12:47 AM 2
C:\Documents and Settings\macdonell\My Documents\temp 27 may 04\e438ed5e-0d20-48fe-9285-ea094e5f167f.doc
Introduction
Very broadly, our ultimate objective in relation to performance reporting is to
raise the level of debate from “what did government do?” to “is government
doing the right things?”.
For annual reports to meaningfully inform this debate they must provide the right
kind of information to decision makers – in other words information that fulfills
the BC Reporting Principles. “Over time, the use of the principles should lead to
more mature and meaningful discussions about the choices that government
makes and the impact of those choices on the people it serves.1”
The assurance provider’s role in this process is to give readers comfort that the
information government provides is accurate, that it is relevant to understanding
performance, and that it can be trusted. In short, that government’s
performance reporting is credible. We believe third-party assurance will be an
essential element in establishing this credibility, and that the highest form of
assurance is where auditors attest that performance is “fairly presented”.
Our original thinking was that a fairly presents conclusion would be a composite
of three separate conclusions:
 the BC Reporting Principles have been fundamentally incorporated,
 the performance data is accurate, and
 the performance measures are relevant
In the end, this model held for the most part, but not exactly the way we had
envisioned. For instance, it did not seek to establish accuracy beyond
performance measures, yet most performance reports contain significant
amounts of data outside of the measures. We also found that, after exploring
different approaches towards the third conclusion, that is was implicit in the first
conclusion.
The purpose of this discussion paper is to walk readers through the development
process that led to the OAG BC’s current approach to providing “fairly presents”
assurance on performance information, explaining the rationale behind the
choices we’ve made and the direction we’ve taken.
1
Performance Reporting Principles for the British Columbia Public Sector, pg. 1
Michael Macdonell, LastSaved: 10/05/12 12:47 AM 3
C:\Documents and Settings\macdonell\My Documents\temp 27 may 04\e438ed5e-0d20-48fe-9285-ea094e5f167f.doc
The BC Reporting Principles
The Learning Model
The OAG BC has employed an incremental framework for providing assurance for
performance reports. The framework starts with the learning model, a tool for
assessing the degree to which the BC Reporting Principles have been
incorporated within annual reports. The learning model is only an interim step.
Our final vision is an audit opinion that concludes performance has been “fairly
presented” in accordance the BC Reporting Principles.
The first conclusion is addressed directly through the learning model, whereby
we assess reports in relation to each of the eight BC Reporting Principles.
Fundamentally incorporation of the main concepts for each principle is sought,
rather than absolute compliance with all aspects.
The CICA Handbook identifies 7 assertions embodied by financial statements:
existence, occurrence, completeness, ownership, valuation, measurement and
statement presentation.2 Not every assertion is relevant to individual financial
statement items. For example, the assertions existence, completeness,
ownership, valuation and presentation are relevant to balance sheet items, but
occurrence and measurement are not. Assertion-based audit programs are
structured to build evidence in support of those assertions that relate to
individual financial statement items, proportionate to the risk of error.
Similarly the BC Reporting Principles3 identify 7 attributes of performance
information: consistency, fairness, relevance, reliable, verifiable, understandable
and timely. Our audit program is drawn directly from the self assessment criteria
that form part of the Principles, and each audit question is related to at least one
of these attributes. By following our audit program, we are able to directly draw
conclusions on consistency, fairness, verifiability, understandable and timely.
These assertions represent all of the characteristics of performance information
with the exception of relevance and reliability. For more information on the OAG
BC’s approach, please refer to the assessment program and matrix.
Accuracy of Performance Data
Some might argue that accuracy is really a subset of relevance – specifically that
for information to be relevant, it must first be accurate. This may be true,
however for the purposes of our audit approach, we compile evidence to support
the a conclusion on the reliability of information, since this is identified as a
characteristic of performance information in the BC Reporting Principles.
2
CICA Handbook, Section 5300.17, Audit Evidence
3
Performance Reporting Principles for the British Columbia Public Sector, Principle 7
Michael Macdonell, LastSaved: 10/05/12 12:47 AM 4
C:\Documents and Settings\macdonell\My Documents\temp 27 may 04\e438ed5e-0d20-48fe-9285-ea094e5f167f.doc
For reliability, our approach has been to first assess the “auditability” of the
information in the report. This approach has two main advantages. It provides
organizations with impartial feedback on the quality of their performance data
and systems, and an opportunity to make improvements. The approach also
smoothes our resource demand curve. In the first year we document and
perform system walkthroughs so that we can develop specific audit approaches
for individual performance measures. When we are satisfied that organizations
have reasonable systems for producing performance data, and have concluded
that there is likely to be sufficient and appropriate support, we begin examining
the accuracy of performance data. To date, we have successfully deployed this
approach at the Public Guardian & Trustee and at WorkSafe BC (formerly the
Workers’ Compensation Board of BC). In both cases, we were able to transition
from auditability to accuracy after one year. To be fair, in both cases, the issues
was more about our capacity to do the work than it was about the organization’s
readiness for audit.
We had to adapt our approach to accuracy in recognition that reports contain
important data and assertions outside of the performance measures. Our audit
approach has been to identify individual items of information, for example
numerical performance statistics or subjective performance related assertions,
and seek supporting documentation. This ends-up being a rather ad-hoc
process, since reports are subject to editorial changes right up to the 11th hour.
One of the challenges we faced was in determining how far to go with
management’s interpretations of performance. The Principles require
management to explain to readers its understanding of performance data –
obviously a subjective exercise, but an important one. We struggled with being
associated with management assertions that we could not unquestionably verify.
In the end, we concluded that what we were seeking to do was offer an opinion
on an opinion. We questioned whether it was actually possible to validate
opinions, and if so what value would be added. We believed it was important to
ensure that a plausible link existed between audited performance and
management’s interpretation of it, but that we would put management’s opinions
out of scope. This required the development of a scope exclusion paragraph in
our audit opinion, which reads as follows.
“Also, as called for by the BC Reporting Principles, the Annual Report contains a number
of representations from management concerning the appropriateness of the goals,
objectives and targets established by the WCB, explanations of the adequacy of planned
and actual performance and expectations for the future. Such representations are the
opinions of management, and inherently cannot be subject to independent verification.
Therefore, my examination was limited to ensuring the report contains those
representations called for by the BC Reporting Principles and that they are consistent
with the audited key performance indicators and financial statements.”
Michael Macdonell, LastSaved: 10/05/12 12:47 AM 5
C:\Documents and Settings\macdonell\My Documents\temp 27 may 04\e438ed5e-0d20-48fe-9285-ea094e5f167f.doc
Relevance of Performance Measures
What Does “Relevant” Mean?
It seems reasonable to start by defining what we mean when we say
performance information is relevant. The dictionary definition describes relevant
as “bearing on or having reference to the matter in hand”4. In relation to
financial statements, the Handbook states “information is relevant… when it can
influence the decisions of users by helping them evaluate the financial impact of
past, present or future transactions and events… relevance is achieved through
information that has predictive value or feedback value and by its timeliness.”5
The CCAF reporting principles provide a lengthy, high level definition of
relevance.
“Relevant performance information relates to the aspects of performance being
reported on. It helps users to appreciate, on a timely basis, what has happened, or
is likely to happen, with respect to those aspects of performance that are seen as
key and on which public reporting is focused. It explains what happened and why it
happened. It shows whether performance is improving or declining over time and
helps predict what will happen in the future.”6
While still general, the definition of relevance under the BC Reporting Principles
is more brief and specific.
“information relates to the organization’s objectives and the extent to which results
are achieved. Results should deal with effectiveness, efficiency and costs.”7
Unlike our approach to accuracy, we could think of no intermediate step akin to
“auditability” that we could take to determine if there was sufficient support for
the relevance assertion. It seemed the only way to audit relevance was to
approach it directly.
We understood the concept of relevance to have two components:
 the report contains relevant content
 indicators are used that are relevance for understanding performance.
The first component is addressed under our assessment of the incorporation of
the BC Reporting Principles. The Principles outline categories of information that
are integral to understanding the organizations’ performance, such as the public
purpose served, the risks faced and capacity to deal with them, and
management’s key judgements. Approximately 70% of the questions relate, at
4
Canadian Oxford dictionary
5
CICA Handbook Section 1000.20, Financial Statement Concepts
6
CCAF, Reporting Principles: Taking Public Performance Reporting to a New Level, pg. 45
7
Performance Reporting Principles for the British Columbia Public Sector, Principle 7
Michael Macdonell, LastSaved: 10/05/12 12:47 AM 6
C:\Documents and Settings\macdonell\My Documents\temp 27 may 04\e438ed5e-0d20-48fe-9285-ea094e5f167f.doc
least in part, to relevance. This work is, to a great extent, and existence test.
Either reports contain the prescribed information or they do not. The absence of
key information suggests a report is not fully relevant.
The second component is the subject of discussion in this section.
How to Audit Relevance of Performance Measures?
By virtue of our experience in financial statement audit, with its intensive focus
on numerical precision, we have an established assurance framework for
accuracy that readily transfers over to performance data, albeit with some
adjustments. The standard for concluding whether or not a figure is accurate is
has some subjective elements (e.g. estimates, where figures are based on
certain assumptions), but the process is largely mechanical and numeric. We
conclude whether or not a figure is accurate by recalculating it and comparing
the result to the figure disclosed. If it falls within the predefined range
(significance, materiality), we conclude it is accurate.
However relevance is a softer, more subjective characteristic, and auditing it is
quite different. There is no measurement scale or process to recalculate. The
selection of publicly reported measures of performance is entirely subjective. BC
Reporting Principle #7 suggests performance information should be verifiable –
that is, that it can be reproduced or traced and independently verified. The
relevance of performance measures does not lend itself to reproduction, because
at the end of the day, there is no such thing as a “right” suite of measures.
Conclusions regarding the relevance of performance information are subjectively
persuasive, rather than numerically absolute.
Understanding that we could not audit for relevance in the same direct way as
we could accuracy, a model was developed to get at relevance from three
perspectives: the organization’s strategic framework, consistency with
benchmarks and input from stakeholders. The model asks three fundamental
questions, assuming that if the answer to all three questions was “yes”, then we
could conclude the performance information was relevant. However, as the
model was worked through, issues arose for each question that suggested this
may not be the most appropriate means to provide assurance with respect to
relevance.
Are the reported measures of interest to external stakeholders?
This is the litmus test – if publicly reported performance information is not of
interest to external stakeholders, then by definition it can’t be relevant.
Organizations should determine if information is relevant by obtaining feedback
and input from stakeholders, potentially through focus groups, surveys or other
formalized (and documented) information gathering techniques. Our work would
focus on assessing the adequacy of external processes organizations engage in,
Michael Macdonell, LastSaved: 10/05/12 12:47 AM 7
C:\Documents and Settings\macdonell\My Documents\temp 27 may 04\e438ed5e-0d20-48fe-9285-ea094e5f167f.doc
and ensuring they were adequately reflected in the performance report. This
approach is consistent with the “inclusivity” component (i.e. stakeholder
engagement) envisioned under the AccountAbility AA1000 assurance standard.
Critique – While the direction of the approach is reasonable, it overstates the
need for stakeholder input. Rather than focusing on stakeholders, the CCAF
principles have a management-centred focus, describing the purpose of
performance reporting as “enabl(ing) readers to view the past results and future
prospects of the issuer through the eyes of management.”8 The purpose of the
principles is to facilitate management telling its performance story – in other
words informing the dialogue from management’s unique perspective, not
encapsulating the dialogue from all perspectives. Two way communication is not
the intention.
The management-centred focus carries over to the BC Reporting Principles.
They have a more outward-looking orientation, requiring consideration of the use
of performance information, but still do not go so far as to recommend
stakeholder input. Principle 3 (the few critical aspects) notes that “what is
critical is determined, in part, by: (among other things) what is of importance to
the intended users – hence, the focus of reporting should be driven by the likely
use of the information.” However, this is tempered by Principle 7 which states
performance reporting should be “based on the best judgement of those
reporting.”
This makes sense. The purpose of performance reporting is to allow government
to tell its performance story, or as described as the first tenet of the BC
Reporting Principles, to “clearly communicate to the public what government
strives to achieve and what it actually achieves.”9 To do so effectively,
government’s presentation needs to tell a coherent story. While it is clearly
preferable to take into consideration the information needs of users, the story is
the first priority. To be meaningful, the story must also focus on the few critical
aspects, rather than try to take into consideration all of the potential information
needs of all users.
It is important organizations have a clear understanding that the essential
purpose of performance reporting is to tell the performance story. The annual
report of a ministry included in our pilot studies provides an example of the
problems encountered when a report is structured to satisfy the information
needs of a multiplicity of users, rather than to allow management to tell the
performance story. The report supplied a lengthy compendium of performance
data, rather than supporting a “mature an meaningful discussion about the
8
CCAF, Reporting Principles: Taking Public Performance Reporting to a New Level, pg. 4
9
Performance Reporting Principles For the British Columbia Public Sector, pg. 1
Michael Macdonell, LastSaved: 10/05/12 12:47 AM 8
C:\Documents and Settings\macdonell\My Documents\temp 27 may 04\e438ed5e-0d20-48fe-9285-ea094e5f167f.doc
choices that government makes and the impact of those choices.”10 As a result,
there was no coherent perspective on the management of some of BC’s most
important resources. The report might have passed the test for stakeholder
relevance, but it failed in focusing on the few, critical matters and in linking goals
and results.
Conclusion – It is important that performance information be externally focused,
however, performance reporting is not intended to satisfy all of the information
needs of all users. Instead, reporting should focus on the few critical aspects of
performance management believes will allow readers outside the organization to
understand the performance story. While this entails consideration of the
audience (as is the case with all communication), it does not imply the need for
extensive consultation or meeting the specific information needs of individual
groups.
Audit work should ensuring performance information is focused on
communicating to an external audience, rather than being focused on internal
processes.
Work is already done in this area as part of the learning model – Our assessment
approach specifically seeks out
 disclosure of the rationale for choosing the performance measures and
targets contained in the report (Principle 8, Qu. 1), and
 whether the report make clear why goals, objectives and measures are
important, and what achieving them means to the public and legislators
(Principle 3, Qu. 2).
Are the measures consistent with accepted and widely used industry
benchmarks?
The use of accepted industry standards of performance reporting strongly
suggests relevance. A large number of similar organizations reporting the same
information is a reasonable basis for determining relevance. Our work should
focus on ensuring consistency with established benchmarks.
Critique – On the surface this seems an intuitively obvious approach – looking to
what others are doing as a basis of comparison. Unfortunately, it turns out to be
an over simplification. In practice, the assumptions underlying the approach are
debatable (accepted and widely used).
At this point, there are few widely used performance measures in Canada. BC’s
public performance reporting is ahead of the curve in relation to other
10
Performance Reporting Principles For the British Columbia Public Sector, pg. 1
Michael Macdonell, LastSaved: 10/05/12 12:47 AM 9
C:\Documents and Settings\macdonell\My Documents\temp 27 may 04\e438ed5e-0d20-48fe-9285-ea094e5f167f.doc
jurisdictions. There simply are few places where BC public sector organizations
can turn to compare their performance. For instance, no Public Guardians and
Trustees elsewhere in Canada publish performance data.
Even if performance data was widely available, this still does not mean
comparisons are always possible because, notwithstanding similar names,
organizations in different jurisdictions often have quite dissimilar mandates. For
instance, there is some performance data for Public Guardians and Trustees in
other jurisdictions, however the mandate of many of these offices are
significantly different. Some focus on managing personal bankruptcies or writing
wills for people who can’t afford lawyers, functions that are unrelated to the
work of the BC’s PGT.
Even where the mandates of organizations are similar, and widely used industry
benchmarks exist, differences in the underlying detail can make benchmark
comparisons complicated and difficult to explain. Effective benchmarking is not a
simple act of comparing similar metrics. It is a “systematic process of searching
for best practices, innovative ideas and highly effective operating procedures”11,
examining the substance that lies beneath performance data. Providing readers
with sufficient contextual information to interpret benchmarks could become a
lengthy exercise in explaining the differences between organizations, rather than
focusing on the performance of the organization itself.
We encountered just such a situation during the WorkSafe BC audit. The
Association of Workers’ Compensation Boards of Canada (AWCBC) has
established key statistical measures and indicator ratios12. But because of
significant differences in industry mix and benefit rules, the data must be
normalized for comparisons to be meaningful. In addition, the most recent
AWCBC data related to the previous year, not the performance being reported.
Rather than provide lengthy, detailed explanations on benchmarks, WCB placed
benchmark information in an appendix.13
Conclusion – Benchmarking should be one of many factors considered when
concluding on relevance, rather than a primary focus. While organizations
should be encouraged to compare their performance with similar organizations, it
is unlikely benchmarking information will form a substantial element of public
performance reporting, at least in the short term. As performance reporting
matures and is embraced by more jurisdictions, the emphasis placed on
benchmarks may change. However, given recent challenges in establishing
national health service benchmarks, this will likely be quite far down the road.
11
Benchmarking for Best Practices, Brogan & English, 1994
12
Definitions and tables of key statistical measures and indicator ratios can be found at
http://www.awcbc.org/english/board_data.asp
13
See Supplement B for a larger discussion of WCB benchmarking
Michael Macdonell, LastSaved: 10/05/12 12:47 AM 10
C:\Documents and Settings\macdonell\My Documents\temp 27 may 04\e438ed5e-0d20-48fe-9285-ea094e5f167f.doc
Work already done in this area as part of the learning model – Comparing
performance to similar organizations is called for under Principle 6 (comparative
information), and is already included in our learning model assessment under
this principle.
Are the measures reported consistent with a strategic framework used
by the organization to manage performance?
The most persuasive case for relevance is the actual use of a performance
measure in managing the organization. This suggests the case for relevance
may or may not be supported by formal evaluations or other studies proving
cause and effect relations between measurement and outcome. In other words,
the measures may not be “the best” in terms of an academic evaluation.
The fundamental premise behind this approach is that there is no such thing
a“right” set of measures. No matter what selection criteria or frameworks are
employed, ultimately the selection of measures to manage performance and tell
the performance story will always be subjective. As such, it is up to
management to describe the significance of each publicly reported measure,
justify why it is germane to the performance story, and explain how it is used to
manage the business.
Better known frameworks include logic models and the balanced scorecard.
However, any framework would suggest relevance so long as it hypothesizes
plausible linkages between goals and measured performance, and is actually
used to manage the organization. This is in keeping with management’s
prerogative to determine the means of steering the ship, which as at least as
much art as it is science.
Critique – At first blush, performance measures can seem relevant. But in the
absence of use by management to actually run the organization, it is difficult to
conclude that information is relevant.
Take, for example, a count of park visitors. On the surface, this might seem an
important metric for a ministry charged with managing the Province’s parks. In
this case, the measure was tied to the ministry’s objective to “optimize the
economic contribution of park, fish and wildlife recreation”. The ministry
performed periodic, rotating counts of park visitors (using a questionable
methodology – but that’s a different discussion), which were then extrapolated
across all parks for the year. And while the ministry believed increasing park
usage was a good thing, it was not a strategic objective. The number of visits
was not monitored on an ongoing basis, and no programs were specifically
aimed at increasing the number of visitors. When ministry officials were queried
about the connection between park visits and economic activity, they admitted
Michael Macdonell, LastSaved: 10/05/12 12:47 AM 11
C:\Documents and Settings\macdonell\My Documents\temp 27 may 04\e438ed5e-0d20-48fe-9285-ea094e5f167f.doc
there was no established, or even hypothesized, connection – park visitor
information was simply available because it had always been done. On the
surface, park visitors seemed relevant – in reality, it was just a readily available
number with little or no bearing on what the ministry was trying to accomplish.
WorkSafe BC provides a number of positive examples. The performance
indicator “the number of days it takes the WCB to get first time-loss payments to
short-term disability claimants from the date of their disablement” is has an
obvious link to the objective “improving the timeliness of initial short-term
disability payments” and a plausible bearing upon WorkSafe’s goal of “improving
satisfaction, accessibility and public confidence”14. Like all of WorkSafe’s key
performance indicators, the period between injury and payment is tracked on an
ongoing basis and reported to the Board of Directors monthly. Specific programs
have been undertaken to speed-up the processing of injury claims, and claimant
satisfaction with the claim process is also directly measured. There may be
better ways for WorkSafe to improve satisfaction, accessibility and public
confidence, but claim processing time is one area on which management has
chosen to focus. We concluded that this measure was relevant.
Both examples seem intuitively relevant, but the fundamental difference between
them is that one is used to manage performance, the other is not. One tracks an
activity that bears an incidental relationship to a ministry objective (which is not
explained in the report), and that the ministry does not actively manage. The
other represents a performance metric that an organization actively tries to
manage downward.
This approach is consistent with the BC Reporting Principle 2 which states there
should be a “logical flow or an inter-related ‘chain of events’ ” and that “by
monitoring performance, an organization can learn from what has happened and
make adjustments to its plan.”
Conclusion – Assessing consistency with a strategic framework is an essential
prerequisite for concluding whether performance measures are relevant or not.
The learning model audit program contains, under principle 2, steps requiring the
assessment of the “chain of events” and the comparison of reported performance
information with that used to manage the organization. This approach seeks
reasonably hypothesized linkages between organizational goals and objectives,
the actions of the organization and measured performance. There does not
appear to be a need for further work.
14
Workers’ Compensation Board of BC 2004 Annual Report, goal 2A, key indicator #4
Michael Macdonell, LastSaved: 10/05/12 12:47 AM 12
C:\Documents and Settings\macdonell\My Documents\temp 27 may 04\e438ed5e-0d20-48fe-9285-ea094e5f167f.doc
What the question does not do is seek to assess the quality of the performance
management framework – in other words, is the organization properly managing
performance. This represents the difference between a direct audit and an
attestation engagement.
Other Discussion Issues
We also considered other alternatives, approaches and issues in formulating our
approach.
Direct Audit vs. Attestation
One of our pilot assurance studies suggested we could not positively conclude on
the relevance of performance measures without auditing the causative linkages
between goals, actions and measures. This conclusion raises a question about
what we really are trying to achieve in our work with performance reports, and
highlights the need to distinguish between direct audit and attestation.
The suggestion would be valid if we were conducting a direct audit. In such an
engagement we could test the cause-and-effect relationships between an
organization’s goals and the programs it undertakes to get there, proving that
the things the organization does actually have the desired impact. In turn, we
would examine the performance measures to determine if they fairly indicate the
degree of effort expended by the program (outputs) or are truly reflective of the
desired outcome. In the end, we would be able to conclude that the “right”
things are being measured, and hence that they are relevant.
But our intention is not to conduct a direct audit. Our intention is to offer
assurance that management has provided information relevant to understanding
performance, in accordance with the BCRP’s. As such, it is not our intention to
provide assurance that management is doing the right things or has selected the
“right”’ set of measures. Instead, we examine the report to ensure that
management has provided its performance framework. We do not challenge
strategies management has chosen – that is up to the reader. We look at the
performance measures to ensure they are externally focused, and that they are
indicative of ongoing performance (outcomes or outputs) rather than focused on
milestone achievements or inputs. And finally, we look to management’s
explanations of performance to ensure they make sense in light of the results
reported (plausible).
The attest opinion is simultaneously more narrow and more expansive than the
direct opinion. It is more narrow because, in relation to performance
measurement, our test for relevance is that the information need only “relate to
the organization’s objectives and the extent to which results are achieved” and
Michael Macdonell, LastSaved: 10/05/12 12:47 AM 13
C:\Documents and Settings\macdonell\My Documents\temp 27 may 04\e438ed5e-0d20-48fe-9285-ea094e5f167f.doc
“deal with effectiveness, efficiency and costs.”15 At the same time our assurance
is more expansive because the opinion relates to the whole report, not just the
measures. Information is relevant to understanding performance because it has
been called for in the BCRP’s.
The table below summarizes the distinctions between a direct audit for relevance
and a “fairly presents” attestation.
Direct Audit Attestation
Objective: for the auditor to reach a Objective: for the auditor to reach a
conclusion regarding the relevance of conclusion regarding the presentation
performance information of performance in accordance with the
BCRP’s
Prerequisites: audit criteria (e.g. Prerequisites: management description
strategic framework, benchmarks, of basis of confidence in relevance of
stakeholders) information, consistent with the BCRP’s
Responsibility to prove relevance: Responsibility to prove relevance:
auditor report preparer
Methodological focus: direct Methodological focus: examination of
examination and testing of causative sufficiency and appropriateness of
linkages between actions, measures evidence supporting management’s
and results (evaluation model). assertion
Conclusion: the performance Conclusion: the information presents
information is/is not relevant to performance in accordance with the BC
understanding performance Reporting Principles (no specific
conclusion on relevance)
Evaluation
It was also suggested that if we do not directly assess causality, then it is up to
the organization to present proven causative linkages between goals, actions and
results – a framework supported by scientific evaluation.
This approach assumes linkages can be proven, which may or may not be the
case. Given the overlap of responsibilities in government, any organization’s
effects on long-term outcomes are more likely to be contributory than causative.
We want organizations to speak to outcomes, not necessarily lay claim to them.
While having an evaluation in hand would certainly reduce risk from an audit
perspective, in a practical sense it may not be a realistic expectation.
Evaluations are usually expensive, time consuming and need to be revised
15
Performance Reporting Principles for the British Columbia Public Sector, Principle 7.
Michael Macdonell, LastSaved: 10/05/12 12:47 AM 14
C:\Documents and Settings\macdonell\My Documents\temp 27 may 04\e438ed5e-0d20-48fe-9285-ea094e5f167f.doc
periodically to remain valid. Where management has put forward plausible,
logical linkages, the cost/benefit of evaluation may not make sense.
Organizations must make decisions and be accountable with the best information
and best understanding reasonably available. Rather than requiring a scientific
evaluation of each program, effective performance management should employ
the scientific method of observation, hypothesis and prediction. It is a process of
trial and error; a process of continuous learning and refinement.
“Planning and reporting are part of a continuous cycle: the monitoring and reporting
of results helps inform future planning, while the planning process sets out the
intended results and the strategies to achieve them.”16
The intention is not to be critical of the evaluation process. It is tremendously
valuable in circumstances were options are being explored, organizations are
seeking new direction or developing new policies and programs. For larger
programs, it may be appropriate to encourage organizations to conduct
evaluations, to ensure programs are having the greatest affect on desired ends.
However it would be difficult to defend the cost/benefit of requiring periodic
evaluations for every program in government.
Conclusion
In exploring various approaches to providing assurance that included the
relevance assertion, we kept coming back to the work that we were already
doing to determine the extent to which the BC Reporting Principles were
incorporated. In other words, we had already reached our destination but didn’t’
know it.
Fundamental to this conclusion was
 a focus on the definition of relevance as defined in the BC Reporting
Principles
 an understanding that our aim was to provide an attestation report, not
direct assurance on relevance
 an understanding that relevance has two key components –
completeness of reporting and composition of performance measures,
and,
 that the first component is directly and sufficiently addressed in our
learning model methodology.
In working with the three questions to determine the relevance of performance
measures we concluded that each of them was necessary for reaching a
conclusion on the relevance of performance information. Performance measures
16
Performance Reporting Principles For the British Columbia Public Sector, Principle 2
Michael Macdonell, LastSaved: 10/05/12 12:47 AM 15
C:\Documents and Settings\macdonell\My Documents\temp 27 may 04\e438ed5e-0d20-48fe-9285-ea094e5f167f.doc
do need to speak to an external audience, but they do not need to be driven by
external stakeholders. Organizations should compare their performance to that
of other organizations and industry benchmarks, but in these early days such
opportunities are few and far between. Most important is use by an organization
to manage for results. This approach is highly consistent with the BC Reporting
Principles – so much so that we had already covered-off most of the work
necessary in our learning model assessment of the incorporation of the BC
Reporting Principles.
In time, it is likely our approach will further evolve. But at this point we are
comfortable with the conclusions we have reached and the risk we have taken.
We invite questions from other practitioners, and welcome feedback to help us
strengthen our approach.
Michael Macdonell, LastSaved: 10/05/12 12:47 AM 16
C:\Documents and Settings\macdonell\My Documents\temp 27 may 04\e438ed5e-0d20-48fe-9285-ea094e5f167f.doc